decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What the jury actually decided... | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
So they can be fixed

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast

Malathi Nayak @MalathiNayak
Alsup is back in his seat. He says one of the jurors has had conversations outside the jury regarding the trial over the weekend.

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why has the jury verdict not yet come in?
Authored by: jkrise on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Is the patent phase which has apparently started, happening in front of the
jury, or not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Israeli workweek
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
Judge: [Gives Oracle a little extra time... had said by this Thursday, but gives them the weekend.]
Note that the Israeli workweek is usually Sunday through Thursday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Israeli workweek - Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT
  • Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
    • Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
      • Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
        • Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:52 PM EDT
        • Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT
      • Israeli workweek - Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT
        • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT
          • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
            • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
              • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:46 AM EDT
                • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
          • Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
Why is she talking with her husband?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
I suppose she could have ignored him :-)

But I think it would be difficult to spend the weekend with someone and not talk
about what you had been doing all week.

I may be wrong but talking about your courtroom experience without talking about
the case would seem to be reasonable.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Goolge Happy
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
I'm sure Google is happy with the decision the Jury reached.

They had to find guilty on 1A, given the Judge told them to assume the SSO was
copyrightable.

They only found them guilty of Timsort on anything else, and that was a given.
So basically Oracle struck out on everything (including foreclosing fair use
defense, since the Jury didn't decide on it either way).

Now Alsup will have to bite the bullet and go on record about copyrightability
of SSO of APIs.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google now asking for a mistrial
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
The biased jury instructions now come home to roost.

The jury felt compelled to find for Oracle, but they couldn't agree on Google's
fair use defense.

Although it would be wasteful, I think a mistrial is the best possible outcome
here. This jury is completely tainted because Judge Alsup didn't decide the
copyrightability question before trial. If he proceeds with the rest of the
trial, its going to be a disaster either way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
Question 1A is irrelevant given the jury instructions. It was practically a
directed verdict of fact. But a determination based on Law by the judge will be
critical.

Question 4A is more important than 1A.

[ Reply to This | # ]

there's nothing except one line of statutory damages
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel

Judge: Unless court can give verdict on 1B in favor of Oracle, there's nothing
except one line of statutory damages

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

timsort?
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
So what is the likely amount of damages for using a few lines of code, now
removed? Less than the cost to Oracle of that part of the trial, perhaps?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Huge kudus to mirror_slap
Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Looking at the Jury's verdict, they found more or less along the lines of what I
thought a reasonable jury would based on the questions as asked. This, to me,
says that mirror_slap made an amazing job of reflecting to us what the jury was
seeing at the courtroom.

So, huge kudus.

Shachar

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did someone put LSD in my coffee? I'm in a federal courtroom, right?
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling

"Let's take a closer look at the word 'invention.'" Did someone put
LSD in my coffee? I'm in a federal courtroom, right?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm Confused
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
It sounds like Google is pushing for a mistrial, but if the Judge finds for
Google on SSO, then all questions are answered and off we go for an appeal. Only
needing a retrial if the Judge is overturned on appeal.

Since the SSO issue is so controversial might the judge adopt the reasoning of
the EU court and kick it upstairs for a legal decision?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 4Xs- Partial Verdict
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
Apparently said jury didn't notice that the person she was talking to could have
been referring to copyrights and not patents. Seems to me like she might not
have been able to tell the difference between copyrights and patents.
Additionally she might not able to separate outside influence from her decision
as juror. Either way, this suggests to me that the jury in this trial is already
contaminated with invalid information.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question 4 Yes uhh No ...YesNo
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
a: Yes - So Google proved that Sun's conduct led them to
believe they would not reasonably need a licence but..
b: No - They did not rely on this info?


I don't understand.

It seems to me that a:No b:Yes would be a more reasonable
conclusion. BTW - thanks for this sight. It is awesome.

[ Reply to This | # ]

4B is a (minor) failure for Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT
It seems to me (IAMAL, of course) as if the verdict on 4B indicates that Google
could have done better there. Surely, they could have asked one of their top
level people whether they were aware of Jonathon Schwartz's posting and whether
it affected their decision to proceed. "Why no, the idea that they might
claim a copyright violation on the APIs was so far-fetched that we were not
worried about proceeding on that ground, Jonathan's posting simply confirmed
that he lived in the same universe as us."

Perhaps they couldn't afford to spend the time for this minor point.

John Macdonald

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good verdict for Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT
This is actually a good verdict for Google. The nine lines of code were copied.
Doh... That they found no copying on the docs etc. is good.

On 1B, it is no wonder the jury hung. They were told SSO was copyright, and the
answer to 1A was obviously yes. But any reasonable person can see that if it is
copyrightable, then what Google did must be allowed under fair use. Otherwise
innovation would grind to a halt. But the instructions on fair use rule out
fair use - given the instructions they should have returned a no on fair use.

At least this provides some reassurance that common people are not so dumb.

Regards,
-Jeremy

[ Reply to This | # ]

David Boies stated that Oracle should be owed a portion of Android profits given the rangeCheck
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
On the issue of damages, Oracle counsel David Boies stated that Oracle should be
owed a portion of Android profits given the rangeCheck infringement, a pivot
from earlier statements that it was expecting just statutory damages for this
portion of its accusations. Judge Alsup disregarded this almost immediately,
stating that there should be just one line of statutory damages going to the
jury, which would result in a much smaller number than Oracle had hoped to
achieve with its legal action.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I see some handshaking going on over on Google side.
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT
Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel

I see some handshaking going on over on Google side. Technically the shot at a
mistrial is better than nothing at this point, right?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

SO FAR all Google is liable for... damages report says equals about the price of a ham sandwich
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling

So...SO FAR all Google is liable for is infringing nine lines of code which the
damages report says equals about the price of a ham sandwich

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

David 'bordering on the ridiculous' Boies
Authored by: BJ on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
Ah -- how sweet to be able to grinningly state something like this.
Regards to judge Alsup.

bjd

[ Reply to This | # ]

About Compatibility and Fragmentation of Java of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 4Xs- Partial Verdict
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
On Saturday, May 05 2012 PJ say:
"this made up thing called SSO"
I did a search back in the filling and the fist time i could find this acronym used was on April 13 in a answer to the Judge:
Google's Proposed Findings, [#898], similarly headless and footless:
2. API specifications, by design, describe the structure, selection and organization (“SSO”)
On April 16 there was talk of a Glossary list:
Third:
JA asks for glossary of the top-40 terms that will be used by the jury.
O produces the list
JA: Was this list agreed to by both parties?
O: Yes, your Honor.
JA: Thank you for doing that.
On april 17 again:
Handouts are given to the jury. One is a timeline and the other is a glossary of terms. Both have been stipulated. Each is a single page.
On April 27 there are filling from Oracle; one of them is Exhibit 2 (glossary) (PDF)
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1002-2 Filed04/28/12

But checking this Exhibit; there is no SSO mentioned
Is this not the same list as handed out to the jury?

/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

Partway through the Oracle Patent opening... "this converts symbolic references into pointers"
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
They are to teach the jury about "this converts symbolic references into
pointers"...

Really?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is like watching Punch and Judy argue about who stole the sausages
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
I mean, really, resolving symbolic references?
and 'static initialization of arrays'?

Symbolic references is dynamic linking 101.

I know guys who used to do this stuff on a Commodore 64 with
linked-lists/indirect references and bottom up/top down memory allocation.
(disclaimer I have not and do not care to read the patents, they do not apply to
me in my jurisdiction [..yet])

What planet do these people come from?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jonathan's Testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
Can someone explain to me why the Judge said he would have approved a strike
to part of Jonathan's testimony? What did he mean by the "spring gun"
comment?

Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid NYT
Authored by: nola on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
says that the jury already decided on the patent question

Mixed Decision in Google-Oracle Patent Case

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • bad link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
    • bad link - fixed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
  • Stupid NYT - Authored by: nola on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
  • Stupid NYT - Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT
Article at the BBC.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT
Here is a Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

"infringer's profits" ???
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
On 9 lines of de minimis code?

That is not even fishing at the bottom of the barrel,
that is looking for old rusty fishhooks so you can
say you can say you went on a fishing trip.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict
Authored by: xtifr on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT
Well, my skills as a prophet have been completely discredited. I guessed that
Google would win on the APIs and lose on the documentation. (Which would have
been a hollow victory for Oracle, since the documentation isn't included with
Android itself, leaving them no shot at per-device Android license fees.)

Of course, Google can still win on the APIs if SSO is thrown out, but that
leaves me batting 50:50, best case.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"infringer's profits" ???
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
On 9 lines of de minimis code?

That is not even fishing at the bottom of the barrel,
that is looking for old rusty fishhooks so you can
say you went on a fishing trip.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The jury has decided Google is guilty… but was it really qualified to do so?
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
The jury has decided Google is guilty… but was it really qualified to do so?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Woeful Press Coverage Thread
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
The Register: Partial victory for Oracle in Java case
Although the former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified in Google's favor, saying the company never had a problem with the Chocolate Factory's implementation of Java, the jury seems unswayed
Um, I think the YES for 4a.
Has Google proven that Sun and/or Oracle engaged in conduct Sun and/or Oracle knew or should have known would reasonably lead Google to believe that it would not need a license to use the structure, sequence, and organization of the copyrighted compilable code?
Tells me the jury believed Schwartz's testomony

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the judge decide fair use?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT
Is the judge allowed to decide that something is fair use? Or can he only
decide that APIs should not be copyrightable, which IMHO, is the correct answer
anyhow?

Also, after that copyright registration kerfluffle, do we know for sure that
statutory damages are available here? I'm assuming yes, but I have to wonder.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict; Oracle Wins Nothing That Matters
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
IMO: Oracle = 2nd SCO. At least this judge isn't taking seven years plus to
reach a verdict.

---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have new investment strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
When David Boies starts representing a firm, I go short on
them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nobody else in the world makes Java compilers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT

IMHO, the jikes compiler is a better Java compiler than javac. It's faster, it shows the line number of an error better, it can suggest a legitimate identifier that's close to one you've misspelled, and it's far less susceptible to cascade.

Unfortunately, despite being open source, it hasn't been updated for the language changes introduced by Java 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7. I still use it for almost all my Java source files for which Java 1.4 is sufficient. (It supports asserts but not enums, generics, annotations, etc.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Is Probably the Big Winner in First Phase of Oracle Trial By Ginny LaRoe
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT
Google Is Probably the Big Winner in First Phase of Oracle Trial By Ginny LaRoe

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google have won nothing yet, and I want to see a big Pink Highlighter pen
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
PR/FUD/Opinion/Jury who cares! Nothing.

Bottom line Judge Alsup decides and nothing is done till he delivers his view:
At the moment..

"zero finding of copyright liability" *so* far*.

So Far!!

Yes sure, I hope that Judge Alsup aligns himself with the rest of the universe,
but there are 4 rain forests worth of briefings to get through and to date a
history of alignment with plaintiff point of view.

And Yes, if Google don't get the win, then Van Nest is going to get a mistrial,
but that just means it all counts for nothing and the whole show starts all over
again.

Here's the thing, before we go there, and heck why not before we even got to
phase 2 or 3, why does somebody not force someone to sit down with a box of
Highlighters, one Pink, one Yellow, one Green.

PINK: This is what they copied (My Stuff)
YELLOW: This is where they copied it to (Their Stuff)
GREEN: This is not protected Stuff

Applies to patents and to copyright.

Isn't that what evidence is supposed to be about?

For all the demands to 'show me the tangible expression', let's be done with
loose 'it's in here' answers.

Circle it in NEON Blue Highlighting pen,.

So far in the copyright phase I have seen no actual evidence, I've even annoyed
people on GL for actually supporting the idea that SSO might even actually be
real and cognizable (if you squint hard enough) in docs and code.

But come on, when is someone actually going to point to it and go "Right
THERE! See it RED, YELLOW, GREEN?" actual distinguishable evidence.

Is that not the whole point of finding of fact?

It's about time the lawyers/judge cut the cr........

[ Reply to This | # ]

That "Android shattered Java's central write once run anywhere principle" makes me sick
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
Android actually delivered that glorious "write once run anywhere" to
the mobile space.

You can program in normal sane Java and use almost anything written for JavaSE
with no problems (of course within bounds of reasonable).

On the other hand, Sun's own JavaME was anything but "normal" Java.
Literally nothing could be reused, I needed to rewrite everything from scratch.


And I am not talking about fancy things, even HashMap was not there. "Write
once run anywhere" my a....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Get your anti-FUD straight
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT
The jury DID NOT reach a conclusion as to Google *improperly* using Oracle /
Sun's code.

To Google is liable IF AND ONLY IF BOTH 1)They used Sun/Oracle's code AND 2)They
did not have a valid defense / reason for doing so (fair use). The jury
returned true on 1) and NULL on 2) and as a result the entire return is NULL.

Google used the Java API. But you knew that already. The jury reached no
conclusion that they were liable to Oracle / Sun as a result.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder how the share market will react
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT
After the SCO saga I formed the opinion that the average share market investor
must have the approximate intelligence of a small rodent. After every setback
SCO's share price would bizarrely rise. I would be interesting to see whether
Oracle/Google share owners are collectively as stupid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict; Oracle Wins Nothing That Matters
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
If the jury doesn't back you - tell a lie
Lest the press not there attack you - tell a lie
If you whole case is appalling
Just ignore the caterwaulling
There is nothing you can't facedown - if you lie

Never mind the jury's verdict - sell a lie
There are some who won't have heard it - so you lie
And your stock price needs inflating
More than simple truth needs stating
So ignore the court's decisions, tell a lie

[ Reply to This | # ]

Given 'Yes' to 4a, how could Google NOT have a valid Fair Use defence
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT
Hmm, actually I re-read this and realised just how stupid the verdict is....

On the one hand, the jury found that Sun/Oracle behaved in a manner in which Google would reasonably believe that they did not need an license (covering SSO)

And then they say they couldn't come to a conclusion Re: Fair Use

And what on earth is the go with 4b - Sun behaved in a way that could lead Google to assume they did not need a license, but Google did not rely on this as a basis for not obtaining a license? Sounds like re-trial fodder to me:
OK, so we know a jury will believe Sun's actions provided 'tacit' approval for unlicensed re-implementation, now we just need to prove that was the basis of our decision to not get a license

Imagine for a minute if someone leaves the keys in a car with a sign that says "Free to Drive (but please, fill-er-up when your finished)", advertises the location of the car in the local paper and gives you high-fives after you drive it the first time.

Now, imagine that the owner removes the sign (but leaves the keys in the car) and you take it for a second drive (and the owner watches without trying to stop you). This time, the owner gets you arrested and charged with theft...

And the jury decides that:
  • What you did fits the legal definition of theft
  • But the owners previous actions (and leaving the keys in the car) would give you a reasonable impression that you could still drive the car
  • They couldn't decide if you're guilty of theft or not
Weird!

By my reckoning, how could Google NOT have a valid fair use defence

For another (Australian) classic case of a 'Fair Use' equivalent, take a look at The Chaser APEC pranks
It was decided that the police, failing to notice that the presented security badges were fake, had given "tacit" permission for the group to enter the restricted zone

[ Reply to This | # ]

What the jury actually decided...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
So, it seems to me that almost everyone (both here and in the media in general) is being a little bit sloppy in commenting on what the jury actually decided, especially in regards to Q1, 3, and 4. Here is how I understand it:

Re: Q1

This question could have been worded more clearly. A one word change and one word deletion would have done it. It should have read:

"As to the compilable code for the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a group:

"Has Oracle proven that Google has copied the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works?"

This question refers to copying the structure, sequence, and organization (that is, non-literal copying) of the compilable code of the implementation of the classes in the 37 packages. The SSO of computer programs (that would be the compilable code) is protectable, that of an "API" is not (yet). The term API is a red herring here and should have been left out for the sake of clarity. That is was left in is probably grounds for appeal if there is no mistrial on this count.

Once copying has been established, then fair use can be considered. If there is no fair use (or other exception to copyright that covers the copying and is pleaded), then and only then is there infringement.

Also, I'm not sure how the extent of the protected work is determined, but it appears to me that even if the jury had rendered a verdict of copying and no fair use on Q1, the decision would be appealable on the proper extent of the work to be compared, especially in light of the issues with the registration.

Re: Q3

This question was also worded in a confusing manner - is the jury deciding de minimis? It looks like they are, but it isn't clear - I do believe that it's a matter of fact, though. Since it looks to me like the jury decided that 9 lines out of 900 in the file was not de minimis, I'm not sure if this verdict will stand. If Google moved for a ruling as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could have found the copying was anything other than de minimis it may well be overturned by the judge. I haven't checked the motions to see if Google did so move. The wording of this question may also be grounds for appeal (more likely by Google, should it need to or be so inclined).

Re: Q4

This question is an advisory verdict only. The judge is free to accept it or disregard it as it covers an equitable defence to infringement: that of estoppel. As I understand it, in order for there to be a finding of estoppel, two things must be proved: that Sun/Oracle's conduct led Google to believe that they did not need a licence, and that Google relied on this conduct in its decision not to take a licence. Both elements are essential, and both will be decided by the judge alone.

I'm not sure how the judge will rule on this, but he may also include in his verdict (which I think will be a finding of non-infringement as a matter of law) that even if there was infringement, Oracle would be estopped from asserting thier copyrights (whatever they are) against Google (or anyone else that relied on their actions implying that a licence wasn't necessary.

In other words, not much of anything was really decided by the jury, other than there was no violation of the copyright in the documentation. Most of the decisions on copyright infringement still rest with the judge, and will likely be determined after all phases of the trial have been completed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Worst case scenario
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT
Can someone clarify if the worst case scenario is feasible at
all? If so what is the impact?

That is IF judge Alsup holds APIs copyrightable and on top of
that dismisses Google's fair use claim as matter of law since
jury left that open?

Of course Google can appeal etc. etc., but is this a scenario
totally impossible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bang on about the fashion
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT
Who cares if it was a classic black Chanel jacket, or even the red? It wouldn't
be one of the plaid jackets. I mean, gold buttons on a taupe plaid?

It would help if we knew the colour of the clasp bag and the style of the
shoes.

I see what she means. It's hard to compete against free. Expensive, too!

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

name.name.name.name
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT
A name, including non-alphabetic characters, may be just a
name to a computer.

import java.net.MalformedURLException;

#include "/usr/include/linux/pps.h"

std::string tmp=some_hex_tmp_name_with_dots();
std::cerr << "path : " << tmp << std::endl;

path : /tmp/af.be.cd.dc

[ Reply to This | # ]

what happened to the entire works of the APIs and the lack of registration?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT
IIRC this issue was not resolved, though there was a
whole works thing in the jury instructions for the docs.

Seems like Q1 was misleading as it didn't mention
whole works.

Also did Oracle ever prove that they registered
copyright on the whole works, let alone subsets?

[ Reply to This | # ]

what happened to the entire works of the APIs and the lack of registration?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:21 AM EDT
IIRC this issue was not resolved, though there was a
whole works thing in the jury instructions for the docs.

Seems like Q1 was misleading as it didn't mention
whole works.

Also did Oracle ever prove that they registered
copyright on the whole works, let alone subsets?

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Speculation on the jury verdict on question 3b
    Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT
    Sorry if someone else has brought this up already - I have not yet read through all 387 comments posted as I type this.

    I was trying to make sense of the "No" verdict on question 3b

    Has Oracle proven that Google's conceded use of the following was infringing, the only issue being whether such use was de minimus: Source code in seven "Impl.java" files and one "ACL" file.
    How can the jury have decided that conceded copying of 100% of the files was not infringing? I can think of two ways to get to that conclusion. Does anyone have any other ideas?

    One, perhaps they noticed that Oracle showed the output of a decompiler matched up against Google's version, and decided that Oracle never showed that the source code itself was copied. As a techie, I consider it well settled that the object code of a compiled program is protected by the same copyrights that protect the original source code. It seems obvious to me that if I decompile a program that is protected by copyright I am producing an infringing derivative work. But Oracle seems not to have thought to make that clear to the jury, and Google certainly didn't correct their mistake, if that's what it was. The jury, based on just what they were told, may have decided that Oracle never proved that Google's decompiling of the object code was infringing use of the source code.

    Second possibility, the jury noticed that all of the Java Platform is freely available for anyone to download and use, even if it is not available for anyone to produce and distribute derivative works. Oracle did not prove that Google's conceded use of the test files involved anything other than perhaps using them for their own tests, maybe not even that, but in any case not copying and distributing them.

    Either of those ways of reaching the "No" verdict on 3b seems to me to indicate the jury putting real thought and consideration into the details of the case, and speaks well for them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Long arm -- Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Pracle Wins Nothing That Matters
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:56 AM EDT
    Berger has Thursday to get here from Isreal!!!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict; Oracle Wins Nothing That Matters
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT
    What about gcj that is part of gcc?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why the delay on judge ruling re API copyrightability?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT
    I've followed everything so far, and I understand the alleged reason for Alsup's
    peculiar instructions to the jury on the subject of copyrightability of APIs
    (peculiar from my perspective, as a techie). What I don't understand though is
    why the judge continues to delay his ruling on that issue, now that the jury has
    returned a verdict to the best of their abilities.

    In many ways, it is the judge who manufactured an impossible task for the jury,
    by not declaring whether APIs are copyrightable as a matter of law in advance of
    jury deliberations. And it is the two legal teams plus the judge who
    manufactured this entire "SSO" fiction around which so much of the
    discussion has revolved. It created a legal issue artificially where none
    existed before, and it gave the jury a hypothetical to consider which
    unavoidably harmed their ability to return a verdict based on matters of fact.

    That may be history now, but in delaying his ruling on the matter of law
    further, the judge seems to be turning an unfortunate legal strategy into
    something worse, a major cause for concern worldwide. Does anyone understand
    the basis for his delay?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is there a good summary of the issues and strengths of argument of the patent phase?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
    I have been following the copyright phase very closely, and
    think I've got a good overall grip of the issues.

    Possibly I'm missed it, but is there a good summary of the
    state of play, expected arguments, and relative strengths of
    case for the patent phase?

    I'm not sure I have a good grip on who is likely to prevail
    here.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Question: Court's Decision on Ability to Copyright SSO
    Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
    In the jury instructions Judge Alsup gave clear direction that the jury were to
    assume that the structure, sequence and organisation of API materials (SSO)
    could be subject to copyright.

    From everything that I have read on this and other cases (to say nothing of the
    recent EU finding directly opposing Judge Alsup's view), the Judge is wrong on
    this point.

    Caveat: Oracle have argued that a developer wanting to write an API would first
    start with the API definitions and from there fill out the relevant code
    functionality. Other developers may argue that as code is written various
    functions are naturally grouped together in associative ways until such time as
    a "logical" API structure is derived. Let's say for the sake of
    argument that in this instant case the truth lies somewhere in between.

    I am not aware of either Oracle USA or Judge Alsup citing relevant case law to
    support this point. Am I wrong on that? Moreover, I see plenty of examples where
    the opposite is true...

    The reason I ask for this clarification is because I cannot help but wonder if
    the Court made a cardinal error when so instructing the jury. Had the Court
    indicated that there was no legal precedent for defining that SSO could be
    copyrighted, then I get the impression that Oracle would have lost every single
    point in the copyright phase of the trial.


    I was discussing this case with some non-technical friends over the weekend and
    was asked to give a simplified explanation of the relevance of SSO and it's
    relevance to the case. With no access to Groklaw, I improvised, and used the
    basic controls of a car as an example.

    My illustration explained that the "Car" code, had a whole series of
    methods by which a user ("driver") could interact with it:

    1. The steering wheel, to control direction
    2. The pedals, to operate throttle, brake and clutch
    3. Instrument switches, for functions such as lights, turn indicators, horn and
    the like.

    I explained that Oracle were saying that they had developed a "Java
    Car" and in that they had specified how to interact with the vehicle by
    selecting and positioning various controls into places which they deemed
    logical. I gave them an example of a 3-position rocker switch which operated the
    turn indicators, and a single sprung-loaded switch that operated the horn.

    I said that Google had built a "Google Car" which also provided a horn
    and turn indicators. I explained that in both vehicles, the turn indicators
    could be set to turn left, turn right, or be inactive. I explained that Google
    had decided to use a 3-position switch, as opposed to 3 different switches, and
    so on.

    The reaction I got from non-tekkies [with a non-IT example] was actually quite
    predictable. Without exception, everyone thought that Oracle were significantly
    over-reaching themselves with the claim of SSO. Maybe my example was not close
    enough to the instant case; maybe I used language or sub-conscious references
    that encouraged my audience to agree with my point of view. I have to concede
    that I cannot be objective on this matter.

    But it was fascinating to listen to the ensuing conversation. It moved rapidly
    away from the Oracle/Google dispute and tried to apply the same "Oracle
    thinking" to other things we take for granted...

    Bottom line is that you can take away all the frightfully expensive lawyer time
    and words: explain this in simple English and people will laugh because they
    just can't bring themselves to believe that Oracle are arguing with the points
    they've raised.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Isn't Java API Documentation machine generated
    Authored by: jlueters on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
    I am confused.
    The java api documentation is generated with a tool, javadoc.

    As far as i know machine generated code (if we assume that api documentation is

    programme code) is not protected by law, at least here in Europe. Everything
    has
    to be written down by a human beeing.

    Any idea why this topic has not been discussed during phase 1?
    Jürgen




    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why does question 4B matter?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
    Suppose I'm driving in a 45 mph zone. I mistakenly believe
    it's a 25 mph zone but decide to do 45 mph anyway, and I get
    pulled over. When the cop asks whether I know what the speed
    limit is, I answer honestly 25 mph. Should I really get an
    infraction for having violated my conscience when in fact
    there was no actual infraction?

    If the consequence of 4A's yes answer is that no one needs a
    license to use the API (what was the point of 4A after all),
    why does 4B matter?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Was anyone there today?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT
    Was anyone from Groklaw's readership at the trial today (Tuesday)? If so,
    can you give us your impressions? I'm curious how Google's opening
    statement went.

    If not, how long will we have to wait until transcripts are available?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict; Oracle Wins Nothing That Matters
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT
    Why doesn't google just take the 37 apis and pull them out of the OpenJDK
    source? As far as I can see, the source for openjdk was released by Sun
    under the GPL with classpath exception. Would that solve the copyright
    infringement problem?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )